I was disappointed when the expected news of Matt Damon not
returning to the Jason Bourne film franchise was confirmed. I know that
it had to happen sooner or later, but it was still crappy news once it
came down. Since then, I've come to terms with my disappointment and
I've accepted the fact that Damon wasn't returning to do The Bourne
Legacy. Now I'm ready to move on from the team of Matt Damon and Paul
Greengrass and I'm ready to accept the new team of Jeremy Renner and
Tony Gilroy. Those two guys have talent and I'm sure that they can make a
Bourne movie just as well as those other guys right?
Even though
Jason Bourne is missing in action, the legacy of Jason Bourne continues
to carry on. That doesn't sit well with former Col. Eric Byer (Edward
Norton). He wants to get rid of any and everything associated with
Bourne and Treadstone. Byer decides that his best option is to wipe out
what he calls "the disease" before it spreads into other areas of the
government. In order to complete his objective, he believes that he's
going to have to knock off anyone associated with the program and that
includes assassinating field agents like Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner).
Cross
catches on to this and goes on the run to escape the danger that awaits
him. Along the way, he meets up with Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz),
a scientist in the program who also has a price on her head. Agent
Cross and Dr. Shearing are now on the run and must travel the globe to
save their lives and get some answers. But they have to move with
extreme caution, because If they fail, they'll meet the same ending of
the many who have crossed path with the unseen forces that are hunting
them down.
The Bourne Legacy is a continuation of the story that
we saw in The Bourne Ultimatum. While it does continue parts of the
actual story from that film to an extent, it branches out into the other
parts that coincide with the time span from that previous film. This
movie opens up with Aaron Cross training in the freezing cold weather of
Alaska's wilderness. This is also the place where the likes of Jason
Bourne (Matt Damon) had also trained over the years for this same
program.
Once Cross' existence in the world is established, the
movie goes on and attempts to reconnect the dots while adding some new
ones during the process. The audience learns about what's going on now
with the likes of Pamela Landy (Joan Allen), Noah Vosen (David
Strathaim) and a few others who were left behind to clean up the mess in
The Bourne Ultimatum, but we're also introduced to some other
government agents who want this mess cleaned up in their own way. This
group of agents are led by Eric Byer and they don't agree with finishing
the job in the courts and unlike some of their predecessors who took
this on, they have a much more detailed understanding of what's actually
taking place.
The creators of this film wanted to make the main
antagonist feel superior to the one's that were in previous Bourne
films. They wanted to do it, but that's not what happens. I had a
difficult time taking Edward Norton seriously in this role. He looks
like a nice guy and he doesn't have any sort of base in his voice. When
Ted Conklin (Chris Cooper), Pamela Landy and Noah Vosen were chasing
Bourne in the three previous Bourne films, I could fully believe their
characters. They were stern, strong, in control and forceful when need
be. Norton tried to do that, but he just didn't fit the role and I don't
think anyone could convince me otherwise.
He's not the only
problem when I'm talking about the acting. Norton is an accomplished
actor and I would never question his ability. I'd say the same about
Renner and Weisz. That's why it's weird for me to criticize them in a
sense, but I have to be honest and admit that they didn't bring any
powerhouse performances to the table and they are clearly lacking in
chemistry. Renner and Weisz had decent acting performances, but I
expected more than just decent. The love story (if you want to call it
that) came off as inauthentic, because of this and these two having no
chemistry between them.
I don't think that Renner or Weisz were
made for their roles anyway. While being a good actor with range, Renner
didn't have the style or charisma that I feel is important for roles
like this. He certainly couldn't match Damon's portrayal as Bourne in
any of those categories and that's certainly noticeable. He should be
portraying characters like the one's we've seen in movies like The Town
and maybe 28 Weeks Later. He's not built for roles that ask him to be a
violent and deadly super spy.
As far as Weisz is concerned, I view
her as not being properly cast as well. Unlike Renner, who I believe
has a role that might have been too expansive for him, I think Weisz has
a role that was too restricting for her. While Renner's role should
have gone to an established actor, the role that Weisz has should have
went to a lesser known and slightly younger actress who could have
brought some kind of freshness to a film. I actually believe that The
Bourne Legacy holds her back somewhat and she's not able to show off
what she can do when it comes to acting.
Being is miscast is
basically the same issue that Renner, Weisz and Norton face. That's one
of the differences between this Bourne film and the others that came
before it. Those films had actors that fit and with the exception of
Damon, none of those other guys were well known names when compared to
these guys. For example, Franka Potente had a role that fit some of the
things that she's done before and she was a slightly new face that
American audiences hadn't really seen much of yet. Similar things can be
said of actors like Brian Cox and David Straithaim when they were cast.
The
average to decent acting from the miscast actors hurts the movie in a
multitude of ways. The largest and most obvious way it hurts it is
because there's not that much action to speak of in The Bourne Legacy.
You heard me right, there isn't much action to speak of. There's very
little fighting and shooting and whether it's on vehicles or on foot,
there's very little chasing. I couldn't believe the lack of activity
being displayed right in front of my eyes.
Apparently, someone
decided that it was best to primarily rely on talking, a few flashbacks
and attempts at drama instead of intelligently done high octane action
for some reason. I don't mind those things coming into play, but people
come to Bourne movies to see bad guys getting beat up and the lead
protagonist using intelligence and intuition to find his way out of dire
circumstances when there are a countless number of agents and cops who
are hot on his trail. We do get a small amount of that, but it's just
nowhere near enough and it's only ever decent at best. How can you even
think about putting out a movie in the Bourne franchise with action done
in this style?
You might think that you'd be in for a smart movie
with more substance due to the fact that there's more talking and drama
to go with less action, but The Bourne Legacy is less brainy and less
dramatic than you might think it should be. The previous versions of
Bourne are intelligent in the way they handle everything. Directors Doug
Liman and Paul Greengrass were able to tell an attention grabbing story
with a lead character that didn't do much talking and really didn't
show any emotion or personality. It shows off the attention to detail
that's important in film and this latest movie missed a bunch of that.
If
I don't compare The Bourne Legacy to the other films in the Bourne
franchise and I allow it to stand on its own, I'd say that this movie is
an average film at best with some solid acting and a few action scenes
that are decent at certain points. On the other hand, if I compare to
the three films that preceded it, I would say that it looks much worse
and that it's not comparable at all. That's tough for me to say, because
I love all of the Bourne stuff and I honestly wanted this to succeed
with or without Matt Damon. Instead, we get a watered down action movie
that needed more action and a much better script.
I was originally
hoping that the creators of this movie wouldn't copy Bourne trilogy
completely. I came out of it wishing they would have stole from it more
than they did. Trying to link Matt Damon's Jason Bourne to the film by
showing a picture of his face every now and then or showing his name in
certain places isn't going to build the continuity that the creators are
looking for. A smart action movie with style and substance would have
built that continuity and I would have been amped to sit through the two
plus hours again just to see it on more than one occasion.
The
Bourne Legacy reminds of the time when someone thought it was smart to
make a Halloween movie without Michael Myers in it. It was a terrible
idea and the universal boos are still being heard to this day. The
Bourne Legacy might not be as bad as Halloween 3 was, but it certainly
doesn't live up to the three previous Bourne movies with Jason Bourne as
the lead protagonist. The Bourne Legacy never even felt like a Bourne
movie and it never really looked like one either. They only shared the
names and that's about it.
Bourne's legacy is not helped by The
Bourne Legacy. There's a lot to live up to with this franchises' first
three films being so well received and that should be enough pressure
for people to want to succeed. There was simply no reason to fail this
bad unless they didn't know what they were doing and I find that to be
unlikely. Hopefully the next one sees the return of Jason Bourne as we
dive further into the stories that are ahead of him. If that doesn't
happen, I'll pray and hope that they put forth a better movie from top
to bottom than this one.
Score: 2/5
Rating: PG-13
Director: Tony Gilroy
Cast:
Jeremy Renner
Rachel Weisz
Edward Norton
Stacy Keach
Scott Glenn
Oscar Isaac
Joan Allen
David Strathairn
Corey Johnson
Louis Ozawa Changchien
Film Length: 125 minutes
Release Date: August 10, 2012
Distributor: Universal Pictures